娛樂滿紛 26FUN » 吹水版 » 校園槍擊案的反思

choikk01 發表於 2007-4-20 09:13 PM

校園槍擊案的反思

校園槍擊案的反思fX9~jSl
[ @4J4`;BR
美國校園槍擊案令舉世震驚，當然韓國留學生大屠殺的舉動是必須加以譴責。:N5o| r*^-Y|V,E b
但係回顧他的心路歷程，相信他的行為是由於多年來的含冤受屈而積壓出這可怕的怨恨。
'@1_#\ggdkTG 雖然不知道實情，但係如報導所說，他是長時間受到欺壓的!
)D;^b!Bw(f+pYS 到底有沒有人嘗試幫助過佢？
,X]&tb#zJQ7t 如果他的同學/同僚只係不停取笑佢，整蠱佢，你諗佢點會好過，點會唔精神分裂？
9LO)FH+Ir,d.[(R#z
/Qb_0n4]8EJ;i 有時我們要反問自己，有沒有時常看不起人，孤立人？vU+c{Pf;h
如果世事有相對，將來受害的會否是自己？

specificness 發表於 2007-4-20 09:39 PM

要反思的話，我就會覺得應也要從一個宏觀一點的角度反思下點解美國這個號稱全世界其中一個最文明的國家會容許國民可以如此輕易得到並擁有槍械。其次就要反思這個「文明國家」教育的弊端。個人方面當然可以研究，但綜觀社會方面，我覺得所浮現的最題最少有以下兩點：9H"sc%M7r]

4`0~)W+_%yx { 1. 是甚麼令得這個文明國家的人會輕易以暴力、殺人的形式去解決問題？是教育的不足？還是根本是某些教育促使了這種做法？我們見到，從國家層面看，美國本身就是一個輕言武力的國家！這點我想不用再詳細說明；,?C k"\3_9qD
2. 即使國民會有這種想法，他們會不會這樣做也部份取決於他們是不是能很方便地就得到大殺傷力的武器；為甚麼美國政府會容許平民擁有槍械？這個「容許」本身已表示這個國家現在並不安全，而且因為容許，這個國家也將「不會安全」。我們可以理解警方需要槍械去維持治安，我們可以理解（即使不認同）賊匪需要槍械去作奸犯科，我們可以明白有些喜歡狩獵的人需要槍械去在有限度的地方使用。但為甚麼一個普通人（以至一個普通大學生）可以隨便買到槍？不要告訴我是「因為人人都有，我沒有就不安全」；因為這只表明了容許擁有槍械的禍害，這是結果而非原因。我不是說沒有槍械他沒有其他殺人的方法；對，就算刀子也可殺人，木棍也可以，有時甚至語言也可以。但那跟槍械的即時殺傷力相比，根本不可同日而語；而且，容許槍械本身就隱含了「容許傷人」（就算那是自衞傷人），文明的國人心中早就合理化了傷人了——從「傷人」那裡走到「殺人」，那還不過只是輕輕的向前再走一步嗎，有甚麼稀奇了？%hE7Xm6jn:V8Ufa'fF
eV2U#VTi
這是個人的反思。3OC NKWBT
(h5Z-d D;m
RF
[[i] Last edited by specificness on 2007-4-20 at 09:45 PM [/i]]

mhkk 發表於 2007-4-21 12:24 AM

頭條新聞好野，應一人有一槍，咁可能唔冼死咁多

Paul71 發表於 2007-4-21 06:11 AM

[quote]Originally posted by [i]mhkk[/i] at 2007-4-20 08:24 AM:
r!z3ngX 頭條新聞好野，應一人有一槍，咁可能唔冼死咁多 [/quote];Mqq9m)S;r
most people will become panic during that moment...j5[4C}:XrH,E
since they saw everybody has a gun7v^/F+W U~F3U7w+a
they will simply shoot at everybody in their sightj,p i `)AaU/?'}xN
US need to have tighter gun control...

kcwangwang 發表於 2007-4-21 10:12 AM

**** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ****

garyww 發表於 2007-4-21 10:27 AM

唔通美國既槍械監管=0?
2~p9_W#Ar"AIo,MB$o 係有管＝無管pS
W9VLy:_;{
兇手係合法買槍架！！

大優勢 發表於 2007-4-21 10:48 AM

[quote]Originally posted by [i]choikk01[/i] at 2007-4-20 09:13 PM:h~6}W7zH?!s C(@.E
校園槍擊案的反思G"v~'S&Z_ R

u9}5Q&I+?q] 美國校園槍擊案... [/quote]5EL(g*j CT:ex


yt1Z8` Al@9n 有好多時人會唔覺意做左出黎;h/|sSr)dD

@_ m8Sj6yD_ 所以好多時唔係對人唔好嗰啲 ^ ?%i+k?
............(有太多人自私啦, 就算你搞大一百倍都無用)wu1eh ju8e1jK
W1AE nH

|:[ld#Sb4t 而係殺人嗰個.....要有人關心
+z;P@!Ir9@ .j$E4UBdP&cl~a
其實好似魔警咁V&C]n&w%T#W
,s^:D'j*}[j$C
樹大有枯枝.......你好難關心晒所有人嫁
g"k@&FI;s
;W^ j_7oW [[i] Last edited by 大優勢 on 2007-4-21 at 10:52 AM [/i]]

零界點 發表於 2007-4-21 11:36 AM

其實從小長大的環境及家庭往往會影响到個人人生以後對社會及價值觀有很深的影响...-]HebX(q)FK3L?.H
今天在兇手心中己對整個社會價值觀扭曲...內心的問題無人可提供諮詢...一個情緒上有不如他意...就會有很大負面的反應...
$f1eYZ
f'eKhr&~C Ai 今天,在美國社會各種規定都開放下,人的道德倫理標準上,是否能和現今的社會各種規範並駕其驅..."Fk.s:m.x{
所以,如今的小孩從小養成教育及道德方面仍是重要的一面.....
Q(k$L F2?a 不能只是看到一些表面物質上東西...

Lee3 發表於 2007-4-22 09:18 AM

[quote]Originally posted by [i]specificness[/i] at 2007-4-20 09:39 PM:l {q(|T2P$~
要反思的話，我就會覺得應也要從一個... [/quote]
?k"k-DD4~6~:OF/W pX+J A$r-t
well I have to ask you about drunk driving, since most countries' drinking age is 18 and the US is 21. Does your country ban alcohol when drunk driving kills people? No, and are there more incidents of drunk driving killing people than guns, definitely. Just because our 2nd amendment allows Americans to buy guns doesn't mean it's a bad law or obscure law or any less safe. In fact, it's MUCH safer to have a law that allows people to buy guns. For one, people will buy guns no matter what, the problem with that is you have no legal way to track who has what gun. In America, you get a background check before you can get a gun, and there's a 3 day wait. After that you are in a database so if the gun you own(numbered of course) shot someone, you'll get questioned/arrested/jailed. I don't see that happening to the people who have guns in China.Lw`"]!M0W B
/U9z!pB;E!m(@cO
And secondly, when you give rights to people, there will be a small number who will abuse those rights. Of course, when you don't give rights to people you don't have to worry about it, but then that won't be a democracy. America's a democracy, and that's why they have such laws, of course I'm not saying it's perfect because there are people who break laws or worse, find loopholes, but it's a system that works for us and it gives the people a chance to fix those loopholes and make life better. That's what makes a civilized country, where politicians have to be responsible to the people they are governing over, and a means of fixing loopholes or archaic laws that are no longer relevant. The 2nd amendment will NEVER be irrelevant as long as people have guns.

waikong 發表於 2007-4-22 04:39 PM

[quote]Originally posted by [i]garyww[/i] at 2007-4-21 10:27 AM:+xTsuC A+Z
唔通美國既槍械監管=0?/Z _^Ja;u/d!h)R^
係有管＝無管,~n%c\*Z4_ ?:s
兇手係合法買槍架！！ [/quote]R3| @H/B,}
係呀1T[u+z
c#{@
都唔知點解政府會俾d人合法買槍:haha::haha:

王晶 發表於 2007-4-22 05:31 PM

[quote]Originally posted by [i]Lee3[/i] at 2007-4-22 09:18 AM:
7v2P4`Df0L1P a
LF {1m'?

E(Z8^Q$`$rSKG&[ well I have to ask you about drunk driving, since most countries' drinking age is 18 and the US is 21. Does your country ban alcohol when drunk driving kills people? No, and are there more incidents of drunk driving killing people than guns, definitely. Just because our 2nd amendment allows Americans to buy guns doesn't mean it's a bad law or obscure law or any less safe. In fact, it's MUCH safer to have a law that allows people to buy guns. For one, people will buy guns no matter what, the problem with that is you have no legal way to track who has what gun. In America, you get a background check before you can get a gun, and there's a 3 day wait. After that you are in a database so if the gun you own(numbered of course) shot someone, you'll get questioned/arrested/jailed. I don't see that happening to the people who have guns in China.
Jw8S[}!| 1Sk!WHApEv+v
And secondly, when you give rights to people, there will be a small number who will abuse those rights. Of course, when you don't give rights to people you don't have to worry about it, but then that won't be a democracy. America's a democracy, and that's why they have such laws, of course I'm not saying it's perfect because there are people who break laws or worse, find loopholes, but it's a system that works for us and it gives the people a chance to fix those loopholes and make life better. That's what makes a civilized country, where politicians have to be responsible to the people they are governing over, and a means of fixing loopholes or archaic laws that are no longer relevant. The 2nd amendment will NEVER be irrelevant as long as people have guns.[/quote]'|_Q
ME
H%]%cp"`?V J

$@ S+xv3EO 如果你要渣車 首先要考車牌 要經過指導 考試合格 :g0XBV.Ff2gN]UdJ
而且你身體無問題(視力等等) 你先可以渣車出街octR C*v@mC
但係係美國 買槍 會唔會限制你先經過指導 要証明身體狀況無問題是准買呢?7GL @@^n:c}+Qi
好肯定係無 條韓國仔痴線既都買到槍 已經係一個好大既溜洞 (ArF
K\&Te
所以你用醉駕同合法持槍去比較 係唔恰當 vv3_P{f^eU
危險駕駛可以至命 賣槍比心理唔正常既更危險 點可以唔重新檢討有關法律???
:j$Be#qT$q 而且你話我知 有監管槍械既地方 邊度出現過學園槍擊案呢?
!]m pK7FX8XJ 無錯 如果一d有立法監管槍械既地方 你想要有槍你都可以透過黑市買到槍 h9IuC6u;k0r4m&Q }
但係你可唔可以依家買一支比我睇下??香港幾耐先會出現一單同槍械有關既案件
%kieePX+ZF%TI 你又睇番美國 幾耐有一單 每隔幾個月就一單校園擊案
\0b }Pg RU1Kd1O)w 我唔明d友仔點可以話 同賣槍管制寬鬆無關

Lee3 發表於 2007-6-23 03:19 AM

[quote]Originally posted by [i]王晶[/i] at 2007-4-22 05:31 PM:rO&GHaZ

"U:P)NBO)vgq/s "tGC&w.Xfrx!i
;i
Q7Mv1R2y ^)pq
如果你要渣車 首先要考車牌 要... [/quote]
6PI%s#H@i Y[iO#Uu7y
oh really, you seem to know MUCH about American gun laws, hm let's see
xd[?l now according to Bureau of alcohol, tobacco and explosives:
'D%o2ErOQ (B5) Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition? [Back]
*sB&c.|aBi:X
w"_MHL(D2M| Yes, a person who –8kNo-HT DU
U-aK6P4`vJ
    (1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
6H"} SZ9i0_,c
(l+}-_*| pdG     (2) Is a fugitive from justice;
0f/wFv#CJ;`| 0~.m Q f$FOC d
    (3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;/m}7GI;wi9T-w
gT3N!`'nd E0R4[h
    (4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution; lA8na/E@Q
q!CU"EE%c8jCF.Q2p
    (5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;#@m1U'sE
v
"p+rk#K4j
    (6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
}A,Jd'm F;_kepw?*~o"r
    (7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;9a(F#L.h_;Wn,d@

X(^\,U;W-X#n4_     (8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or
nI2WjOBx+b
8Y`;t+`l]c Z     (9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violencels6^'v]S@+mn

g?&L*zcY4Us:R2S5Rb+w)wB     (10) Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm.
0LA8^ E5d hh/@:w+s5x
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm.B2H+e)VC%X)OD
JT%yZ|Ft"Ik
Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information.
w8Fu'BKc E1}
l
V(|^p(F
[18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n), 27 CFR 478.32]
vBkl,_L ] rs9l1_i\$P
oh what? now does that make you ignorant? yes. yes it does.

qqwqqwqqw1 發表於 2007-6-24 09:55 PM

美國太易得到槍,3jB&X ~
{e!q
佢根本無想過禁,
"i:|*]]ktLM0^m 美國好多地方晚黑都靜英英~
H%k7?X
@*c1b 用槍打劫成日發生,當然無可能全部上新聞,報警都無用
/NY0M*Y1\2gDv (美國無差人係條街到,唔似香港)(J%H-n$|1g/[1iVzt
飲酒開槍都仲有,
YKdW*T 係中國係香港有槍都食大茶飯啦,唔得閒打劫小市民~
W%\2@-cE$wy ?]i*l4V/i
校園槍擊案最錯一定係開槍果個人啦,唔好賴,
Y&NKfy
得佢有壓力咩,個個都有,個個都殺人咩?
L\aw0a0{3?5F 仲有校園用手槍,咁多人撲上去制服佢一定唔會死咁多人(頂多死一兩個,AK無野講=w=")\L!hXd&j5x U][
不過無計啦,人人都覺得自己條命最貴,咁就一起死lor~

yorker 發表於 2007-6-28 07:01 AM

我覺得又無咩好反思.....
\*i3U am
Wu
rxz"]8Z};cw`\ 你話如果佢係俾人笑, 俾人烚,6^.wvM2fS} j
點解唔去打果d人1身?  唔夠打可以練大隻d至去打. ﹙我係度講緊咩呢==）N { y.MMf
而且點解佢會受到長期欺壓? 點解佢又解決唔到呢個問題?
B&g!x(ME 如果係無人幫佢, 咁又會唔會佢個人本身就有問題?
@$M9a1^c 有d咩深仇大恨要用到死黎解決? 我懷疑.
y'o3}/WH2m;j3x
T^qa9yGc

Z;t,xQ_ ps. 被取笑被整蠱, 同精神分裂無必然因果關係, 我覺得

ming8964 發表於 2007-6-30 12:05 PM

當人權和自由成為絕對真理, 犧牲幾個無辜又幾咁閒呀!!!

GTOGTO 發表於 2007-6-30 02:19 PM

通常玩整蠱都係互相
v0sT R2b|gQ 專攻一個人大家都一定有問題

查看完整版本: 校園槍擊案的反思